Policy on the use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc.:

[ViolaLee]

Originally Posted by jotathought

I think it's silly to allow a stranger on a public, Internet forum to ruffle your feathers. If someone says something false about me ... trust me, I don't lose any sleep ...

People will regard or disregard the comment based on your reputation.

I don't like being lied about. It's one of my flaws.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by Samantha

There is a definition of a loyalist and a definition of a patriot. There are websites I've linked to that describe the difference.

How does that relate to being insulted with having no respect for the U.S. or its military?

Let's stick to the subject here Matt.

We are sticking to the subject, Sam.

You object to what he said about you.

The people you call "loyalists" object to that label, but you are still using it. By your own admission, being a "loyalist" means having no respect for the Constitution.

There is no difference. Your posts were not removed or edited. Why should his be?

Matt

[jotathought]

Originally Posted by Samantha

I don't like being lied about. It's one of my flaws.

Then refute the claim and stop being a tattle-tale.

[ViolaLee]

How does one refute a claim that they have no respect for the US and it's military?

Why is there a forum rule about not making personal insults if the forum rule is not enforced?

[ViolaLee]

Originally Posted by MattLarson

We are sticking to the subject, Sam.

You object to what he said about you.

The people you call "loyalists" object to that label, but you are still using it. By your own admission, being a "loyalist" means having no respect for the Constitution.

There is no difference. Your posts were not removed or edited. Why should his be?

Matt

The original thread about the definition of loyalists and patriots had links to articles explaining the difference. If a person believes Bush is doing the right thing with his constitutional violations wouldn't you agree that they have no respect for the constitution?

Meanwhile this is about something else entirely, but I suppose I have to "cope" with being told I have no respect for the US and it's military if you as a moderator refuse to enforce forum rules.

So be it.

When you're lied about on this forum, you can't point out that you've been lied about.

[jotathought]

Originally Posted by Samantha

How does one refute a claim that they have no respect for the US and it's military?

Why is there a forum rule about not making personal insults if the forum rule is not enforced?

Why are you getting your panties in a bind over something so silly? Just ignore it. People on here already have a good idea about other's stance on specific issues, so regardless if the comment is removed or not, that isn't going to change that opinion.

[jotathought]

Originally Posted by Samantha

When you're lied about on this forum, you can't point out that you've been lied about.

Sure you can .. and there is a much better and more mature way to handle it too.

[ViolaLee]

Originally Posted by jotathought

Sure you can .. and there is a much better and more mature way to handle it too.

Yah, tell it to my Irish temper.

It's pretty fucking annoying when even the moderator gets in on the game.

[jotathought]

Originally Posted by Samantha

Yah, tell it to my Irish temper.

Green to the core I see ...

[Rakkasan]

Originally Posted by Samantha

There is a definition of a loyalist and a definition of a patriot. There are websites I've linked to that describe the difference.

How does that relate to being insulted with having no respect for the U.S. or its military?

Let's stick to the subject here Matt.

he is calling someone a loyalist is a insult to that person

case in point me

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by Samantha

The original thread about the definition of loyalists and patriots had links to articles explaining the difference. If a person believes Bush is doing the right thing with his constitutional violations wouldn't you agree that they have no respect for the constitution?

Again, you show that you mean an insult by the term.

Originally Posted by Samantha

Meanwhile this is about something else entirely, but I suppose I have to "cope" with being told I have no respect for the US and it's military if you as a moderator refuse to enforce forum rules.

So be it.

When you're lied about on this forum, you can't point out that you've been lied about.

When you dish it out, Sam, you have to take it too. You've done the exact same thing that you are complaining about - stated your opinion that another poster does not respect something (in the case of your posts, the Constitution, in the case of the post directed at you, the troops).

Matt

[partofme]

Do we really have to endure this shit again?

[Malvolio]

There is nothing unclear about the rule.

Don't call someone a liar.

[daisym]

I noticed this thread

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=33499

was closed, however I feel that an issue raised there should be discussed.

There are a number of posters here who make indefensible accusatory statements about other posters - and Sam, because of her strong views, is often the focus of this. I consider myself quite tame in the nature of my posts, yet I too have had this kind of treatment from certain posters.
In response, I started doing the same in some instances, even though I know that all this does is polarise people and limit the discussion.

consequently, I prefer to put people on ignore. I have seen fourth graders with more maturity than some posters on this forum.

It IS NOT OK for people to make indefensible accusatory statements to other posters.

To do so lowers the tone of the forum. I think we deserve better than that.

If the moderators are not prepared to caution those who deliberately use this tactic, then the accused SHOULD have the right to call that person what they are. If thats a Liar - so be it. At least the response is honest.

[timj219]

It's a good point. Calling someone a liar is very inflammatory and most times is just a substitute for real argument. But so is making unsubstantiated statements about another posters attitude or philosophy or intelligence. And that happens all the time.

On the other hand if someone does make unjustified accusations isn't it better to point out those accusations are meaningless without specific quotes to back them up? Pointing out the weakness of their claim seems like a more meaningful defense than calling them a liar.